thom w Loc: San Jose, CA

I'd be really interested in what they make that doesn't show up as salary, but I don't think they are overpaid if they do their job. Of course "do their job" means different things to different people. Of course I don't think there is a chance in hell Louie Gohmert could get anyone else to pay him that.

mwalsh Loc: Houston

They dont's get paid for life after one term.

CRS, June 13: Members of Congress are eligible for a pension at the age of 62 if they have completed at least five years of service. Members are eligible for a pension at age 50 if they have completed 20 years of service, or at any age after completing 25 years of service. The amount of the pension depends on years of service and the average of the highest three years of salary. By law, the starting amount of a Member’s retirement annuity may not exceed 80% of his or her final salary.

That means that members of the House of Representatives — who are up for reelection every two years — would not be able to collect pensions of any amount if they only served one term. U.S. senators, on the other hand, serve six-year terms and would be able to collect pensions after one full term. But the pensions wouldn’t be equal to their full salaries. - Wiki

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Maybe you should go to work with one of them one day, so you will REALLY know what they do!
Yes, and some campaign every weekend on your tax dollar, I’ll bet you even Like that? A quick impeach would put an end to THAT waste of tax!!! LoL
SS

pendennis

Not so. Campaigning costs come from the re-election coffers, not U.S. Government funds. That violates Federal election laws. Campaign funds are regulated, and each candidate has to follow laws which require very detailed reporting; from whence the funds came, where and on what those funds were spent.

My former boss was the campaign treasurer for a Congressman, and the hoops he had to go through to properly report, were nearly endless.

FrumCA

Thanks for clarifying this. Ss's hate of Trump has blinded him from all sense of reason and acceptance of facts.

Elaine2025 Loc: Seattle, Wa

Spoken like a true hating liberal. Ridicule and insult half of the country. Good job.

Elaine2025 Loc: Seattle, Wa

What is worse or equally as bad is the seniority system. You must have seniority to be on many of the committees or as in the case of Demented Pelosi, she leads the party because of seniority rather than each party electing their leader. So the system promotes the need to be there forever, and after a few years they become wealthy and they no longer need to raise excessive amounts of money, lobbyists can’t hand the money and perks to them fast enough.

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

Then just why is it that so many of the congressmen become very wealthy while in office. And spend a fortune to get reelected. It's called government SERVICE not personal enrichment

foodie65

And Mitch McConnell does not??

Elaine2025 Loc: Seattle, Wa

This system is how both parties do it. Bad policy for both sides.

foodie65

something that our liberal friends fail to admit

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

Term limits will do nothing as the people back in the districts will simply elect another person from the same party. We need more than two parties...

pendennis

We have a good example of what term limits can do here in Michigan. House and Senate are limited to three terms in each house. What happens is people stay in the house for six years in secure districts, and then run for a safe senate seat for three more; total twelve years.

The problem with the logic, is that no one gets enough experience in six years to really understand how both houses really work. We have new house speakers, and senate majority leaders about every four years; not nearly enough time to gain experience in managing both houses.

There will never be term limits in the U.S. Congress. The likely method for changing the Constitution would be a 2/3 vote in the Congress for an amendment. No chance there.

However, there is an opportunity for change in an amendment convention. Two options exist; first; a term limit amendment could be passed and sent directly to the states; second, the real changes could come via repeal of the 17th Amendment. Under the original Constitution, Senators were elected by the states' legislatures, not popular votes. With a huge majority of Republican legislatures, the Senate wouldn't need a filibuster rule (it should be repealed totally by the Senate). The power of the Federal Government would be in the hands of the states, not the bureaucracy. Senators' loyalty would be bound to the states. Regardless of how the House would be controlled, all laws would have to pass muster by the states, not K Street lobbyists.

Elaine2025 Loc: Seattle, Wa

It might keep them from becoming so corrupt and entitled. It would also stop the big pensions and free medical for life. But there are drawbacks in that that the the system is so corrupt it takes new people a while to figure it out. That does not help us if they join the corruption. Don’t know the answer......I would vote for limiting their terms just because of the corruption.

GeorgeH Loc: Jonesboro, GA

IIRC the idea originally was that Congress would be "citizen legislators;" ordinary folk who served out of a sense of civic duty. At least that was the concept floated! Of course from the beginning only fairly wealthy people could take several months away from their occupations. Thus in the main only the wealthy could afford to serve, not only in Congress but in the various state legislatures. How many teachers, librarians, auto mechanics - to name but a few - do you know who serve as elected officials above the local level? Even at the local level how many teachers have the ability to attend meetings and conferences during school hours?

Should an "average Joe" or Jill be elected to a state legislature or, god forbid, Congress, he/she would be forced to scramble for funds for re-election many hours per day, as Steve R above notes. Having a Congress TRULY representative of the population, at least in terms of occupation and income, is virtually impossible as the system is currently constituted.